PRESS RELEASE August 2, 2012
Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov
Inhofe Exposes Another Epic Fail by Global Warming Alarmists
Photo Posted by KFOR and Think Progress
The dumpster fire that caused the melting lights
Photo Provided by KFOR
Link to Think Progress Blog Post
Link to Watts Up With That: Alarmist fact checking – street lights don’t melt at 115°F
Washington, D.C. – Today the far-left blog Think Progress posted a photo (originally posted on KFOR’s facebook page) of street lights in Oklahoma that had melted, they claimed, because of extreme heat. Global warming alarmist Bill McKibben took to Twitter immediately to publicize what he believed to be proof of global warming, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
Not long after the picture surfaced, Oklahomans posted comments on Think Progress’ blog saying that these lights had melted due to a fire – which makes sense considering that the two front lights were melted while the two back lights remained unscathed. Once this news came to light, Think Progress immediately removed the post and provided an update that reads: “After we published this piece, we saw reports from people on the ground in Stillwater that the melting streetlights were due to a nearby fire. The person who took the photo, Patrick Hunter, described the scene: ‘Being the person that actually took this photo, I’d say that this was due to a fire semi-close by coupled with the unbelievable heat we are experiencing.’ Still an amazing photo and not fake as many are saying on here. Enjoy!”
This afternoon, KFOR confirmed that the melted lights in the photo were not caused by hot temperatures but a nearby dumpster fire.
“Poor Bill McKibben – he’s been trying to get something to melt for ages but it keeps backfiring,” Senator Inhofe said. “These alarmists never learn their lesson. Remember Bill McKibben was the one who was going to melt a giant ice sculpture in the shape of the word ‘hoax’ on the national mall, but his group had to cancel because there wasn’t enough interest. Now, after proclaiming that street lights in Oklahoma are melting because of global warming, we have confirmation that a fire caused this scene.
“Amid the resurgence of hysteria from my friends on the left, I appreciated climatologist Dr. John Christy who testified this week before the Environment and Public Works committee saying that instead of proclaiming this summer is ‘what global warming looks like’ it is ‘scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.’
“This isn’t the first time alarmists have tried these stunts and it certainly won’t be the last – when will they finally realize they’ve lost this debate?”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
troll aka ericgrimsrud:
Your comment at August 4, 2012 at 10:35 am compounds your offence. It says to me;
I have said nothing offensive except in response to your unjustifiable insult.
I note the post from Bill Tuttle at August 4, 2012 at 10:28 am that quotes the bio of you which you provide on your blog. That quote explains you are a sock puppet for an organisation which includes at least one canine member.
I repeat: apologise then clear off and do your trolling elsewhere.
Richard
To Richardscourtney,
I am wondering what planet you live on when you don’t even know that comments such as :
“Anybody who looks at the blog by ericgrimsrud can see he his arrogance is so great that he fails to recognise he is ignorant of almost all climate science” followed by “Please keep it up because I am enjoying the laughs at his expense” would generally be considered offensive on that planet.
And then hide under the skirts of political correctness when one responds in kind.
You seem to thinks your “cheap shots” are statements of fact. In assessing whether they are, it would be useful to show us all your resume so we know where you are coming from. When I go that an MD I like to know his background because I am concerned about my health and where his advice is going from. And my concern about the planet and future generations is just as important to me as my health.
So Please kind and sensitive Sir, show us all where are both you and your friend DavidMHoffer coming from? That is, lets see your resumes. Is that not a fair request when we are discussing the health of our planet?
Concerning any further discussions of science I like nothing better than to discuss the scientific details of climate change, but before getting deep into that, I also like to know who I am speaking with. As you know, my entire background is related at ericgrimsrud.com. I point this out only so you know where I am going from. How about doing the same? What’s the problem? All professional scientists generally have such information at their fingertips – and are alway ready to share them upon request. Watts With You Guys?
To Bill Tuttle.
I have been trying to follow your suggestion of reading the works of Robert Brown but have found nothing of direct relevance to climate change in the peer reviewed literatue. Upon looking him us in the directory of Research Professors in the Department of Physics at Duke University I did not find either him or his work listed. Perhaps you or some of your associates that UCS could point me to his work – of any sort – no matter what field of physics he is active in.
Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps there is a reason why I did not know which Robert Brown was being referred to – I have not been able to find evidence on his work in the usual scientific places. If his work appears only in the blogeries of America you will have to point out where I can find that important work.
Thanks, Eric
And thanks ( I guess) Sir Richardcourtly, for the information you provided in one of your recent comments:
“I note the post from Bill Tuttle at August 4, 2012 at 10:28 am that quotes the bio of you which you provide on your blog. That quote explains you are a sock puppet for an organisation which includes at least one canine member.”
I was understandably not shown this post by the moderator. [Note: what you see is what everyone else sees, and vice versa. Possible PEBKAC. ~dbs, mod.]
While being cute and a mindless bit of condescension, it is also. The “research institute” we have going here in Kalispell Mt consists of just me, my wife and our dog, Bek (who for your info is very smart). We are funded only by the Teachers Retirement Service of Monana who send us a check every month and does not even require progress reports.
We do have a couple of advantages, however. We can actually produce a resume upon request, for example, that describes a lifetime of experience in climate science. Since we seem to have you trumpted you here on that one, perhaps you should bring in some heavier wieghts.
But on that topic, I doubt that either getting a smarter dog or bringing in scientific experts who are not even listed as research faculty at their universities might not help very much (sorry, but experts do tend to be found under that faculty designation. Of course, I have nothing against dogs or non-research scientists and do not like it all all that Mr. Tuttle has caused potential embarrament to both by bringing them into these discussions. So to Dr. Brown and Bek, please understand that I have no reason to suspect that you are not the very best Lecturer and Dog, respectively, on the planet. .
In conversation with a young lady today, she expressed her disbelief in my assertion that warmist climate scientists were loath to engage in a discussion of the science involved, and would instead hide behind their credentials. I referred her to this thread.
Thank you Eric for so clearly making my point, and converting one more person to the skeptic side.
dmh
troll aka ericgrimsrud:
I again repeat: apologise then clear off and go elsewhere to do your trolling on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists (one of whose Members is a dog owned by Anthony Watts).
Richard
davidmhoffer:
re. your comment at August 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm.
Surely, it must be clear to you that the troll refuses to discuss the science because he does not know the science. If that is not clear from his comments here then take a look at his blog.
Richard
richardscourtney;
uhm…. yeah, I was the first person to call him out on the content of his blog and to point out that he was over his head on the science. Been trying to engage him in a discussion of the science ever since, and all he does is hide behind his credentials. Yep, it is pretty clear he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. Unfortunately there are more informed scientists out there who do have a clue, but refuse to engage for an entirely different reason: their science is full of holes and if they engage, the holes become obvious.
To David,
Thank you for sharing that touching story about the young lady. For her sake (and in spite of the fact that I still have no idea of who I am trying to communicate with due to your continued failure provide a simple resume), let’s talk some science and while we are at it let’s cut to the heart of it all.
Everyone agrees (I hope) that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about 40% during the industrial period and that it will have doubled well before the end of this century if business as usual continues. So the BIG CENTRAL QUESTION is what is the Sensitivity of temperature change to this expected doubling of the CO2 level – including all of the expected fast feedback effects, of course . So DavidMHoffer, what do you think that temperure change will be? The topic on the floor is pure science and the floor is yours concerning the most important scientific question of this century.
(Note to the young lady: While I bet you understood the straightforward question I just raised, I’ll wager that you will not be able to understand the “answer” you are about to hear. David’s object is not so much to clarify the science for the public by zeroing in on the central important question – as it is to spread confusion and undermine the credibility of the scientific community – of which he still appears to not be a part (resume please?).
for those still following, I’m not responding further to this clown. But I did discuss the issues upthread.
Of course it happens in Europe. It is however regarded as rather unsavoury and there have been several scandals in which political parties have accepted money from people who might wish to influence policy.
Senator Inhofe received funding from sources like the Koch brothers with a known anti-cAGW agenda. Were he to behave in Parliament as he does in the Senate, our police would be investigating him on charges of taking bribes to raise a topic in the House. Here that is illegal.
August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm
To DavidMHoffer,
Thank you for sharing that touching story about the young lady. For her sake (and in spite of the fact that I still have no idea of who I am trying to communicate with due to your continued failure provide a simple resume), let’s talk some science and while we are at it, let’s cut to the heart of it all.
Everyone agrees (I hope) that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about 40% during the industrial period and that it will have doubled well before the end of this century if business as usual continues. So the BIG CENTRAL QUESTION is what is the Sensitivity of temperature change to this expected doubling of the CO2 level – including all of the expected fast feedback effects, of course . So DavidMHoffer, what do you think that temperure change will be? The topic on the floor is pure science and the floor is yours concerning the most important scientific question of this century. And, as you have repeatedly claimed, you are yearning to “talk science” .
(Note to the young lady: While I bet you understood the straightforward question I just raised, I’ll wager that you will not be able to understand the “answer” you are about to hear. David’s object is not so much to clarify the science for the public by zeroing in on the central important question – as it is to spread confusion and undermine the credibility of the scientific community – of which he still appears to not be a part (resume please?). Alternatively, I will not be surprise that he claims “violations of political correctness and simply runs away from the table. We’ll see.)
Eric P. Grimsrud says: @ur momisugly August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
” . . . I need not wish your grandchildren to go to hell, they will because of their grandpa and his ilk.
Eric Grimsrud, Author of “Thoughts of a Scientist, Citizen and Grandpa on Climate Change””
===============
Reg Nelson says: @ur momisugly August 2, 2012 at 5:56 pm
If we’re all going hell, why should I be bothered to read your book. I think your marketing strategy needs some work.
Reg Nelson, Author of “Why Your Marketing Strategy Needs Some Work.”
===============
ROTFLMAO. I think it may be worth buying your book as a just reward for the belly laugh.
Oh, and if my
grandchildrengrand nieces/nephews are to go to hell (aka Agenda 21), because of their grandpa and his ilk. It will only be because we were unable to prevent the Progressive Socialist Totalitarians from scamming the rest of the citizens like Grimsrud is trying to do.Hey, Grinsrud, go read Democrats Against Agenda 21 and find out who the real enemy is. (I am serious read it!)
mods
myrrh
greg house
eric grimsrud
Someone please wake me when/if Grimsrud ever indicates that he understands the Null Hypothesis.
And Entropic is turning trollish. Every US Congressman and Senator takes contributions. No exceptions [Ron Paul takes mostly individual contributions, the rest take just about anyone’s].
When in Rome…
Entropic doesn’t seem to understand that liberal/Left contributors like Soros far outspend anyone in the center [which includes the ‘Right’].
Thomas Spaziani says:
August 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm
I know this may be a little OT. But NOAA has been touting this crazy drought for July being US wide.. Being an AZ resident currently tying to not float away by the amazing rains we have gotten. This graph showing AZ in a severe drought peaked my interest. http://www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_west.htm I looked at the rain totals for July throught AZ and most are above average.. Some by a lot. What gives? Did NOAA forget to check the rain gauges? Are they averaging that for the entire year?
___________________________________
Food Commodity Futures Trading. Looks like Goldman Sachs wants to make a killing again. See full discussion near bottom Let there be corn! Reality check on the 2012 drought and corn yields in relation to droughts of the past
My state/region is also colored deep brown (Bad Drought) yet we have had a nice wet summer with 15 days of rain in May, 5 days of rain in June, 16 days of rain in July. Usually we are lucky to get rain once a week in the summer. (actual percip totals are not available)
Troll aka Eric Grimsrud:
Having refused to address any of the several scientific points put to you by David, at August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm you have the gall to expect him to answer a point from you. Well, I suppose this is some kind of improvement in your behaviour because your question does pertain to the science. It is:
I cannot answer for David, and I don’t care what anybody “thinks” about the matter because I prefer to rely on what the real world indicates.
Several empirical studies have been conducted and they all provide similar results. I cite one study as example because it uses 8 different methods which each provide an independent indication. It is
Idso SB ‘CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change’ , Climate Research v. 10: 69–82 (1998)
The 8 different methods provide values of climate sensitivity in the range 0.1 0.10 C/W/m^2 to 0.173 0.10 C/W/m^2 with a “best estimate” of 0.10 C/W/m^2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.
It abstract together with a summary of its results is at
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm
and the published paper is linked from there. Or you could go straight to a pdf of the published paper at
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
So, nature says there would be a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.
I see no reason to dispute reality (but I suspect you will try).
Richard
Aaargh
I wrote:
“The 8 different methods provide values of climate sensitivity in the range 0.1 0.10 C/W/m^2 to 0.173 0.10 C/W/m^2 with a “best estimate” of 0.10 C/W/m^2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”
when I intended to write
“The 8 different methods provide values of climate sensitivity in the range 0.1 C/W/m^2 to 0.173 C/W/m^2 with a “best estimate” of 0.10 C/W/m^2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”
Sorry.
Richard
Richard Carlson says:
August 2, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Warmists are still claiming (connecting the dots) the melted lights are a result of man-made global warming. High temps. (because of humans ) caused the dumpster fire which caused the lights to melt.
__________________________
Couldn’t be kids hiding near the dumpster, lighting up and tossing matches or other lighted objects into the dumpster now could it? Cigarettes/cigars are a very likely cause of fires and a NFPA Study Finds a Stunning Increase in Cigarette-Caused Fires
troll Grimsrud can’t even get his simple UCS info straight, probably because he has never been near their vaunted “National Headquarters”, which is not in Boston but in Cambridge, and which is not “AT” the drab campus of MIT but across town in Brattle Square in an ordinary commercial office building, the other side of Cambridge from MIT. Anyone can rent office space in a building in Cambridge…. it does not make their HQ “at” MIT or Harvard. UCS is merely an independent activist group for left-wing academics (founded to oppose US defense research) and any old sod who wants to join….. hell anyone’s dog (or hamster) can join if someone pays the fee, as Anthony Watts proved with Kenji. The troll might want to correct false UCS details on his own website before he tries to preach climate science:
Hyperlink Code
“I am also a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, headquartered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston MA) and serve on their Team Science.”
UCS National HQ is not at MIT
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780
richardscourtney;
Having refused to address any of the several scientific points put to you by David, at August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>
These should be read along with my comments on Aug 3 at 10:07 pm.
I also stipulated upthread as to my credentials, but skippy keeps asking for them anyway. Apparently reading comprehension is not his strong suit. His spelling is worse than mine which is really hard to accomplish, and his grammar wouldn’t get him out of a grade 8 english course, let alone suffice for PhD level papers.
Skiphil;
headquartered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston MA) and serve on their Team Science.”
UCS National HQ is not at MIT
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So he claims to be on their “Team Science” but hasn’t a clue where they are. So he’s either a complete poser or just misrepresenting the UCS. He’s besmirching the reputation of MIT in the process too.
[Snip. You made clear very that your specific intent is to force others to “cut and run”. That will not work here. ~dbs, mod.]
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 7:32 am
This common association of environmental concerns with the “left” is most unfortunate and it is a shame that the “right” is, indeed, brain-dead on the subject. Who in American history was perhaps most important in starting the “environmental movement” of the 20th Century? Republican President Teddy Roosevelt certainly comes to my mind…..
___________________________
Eric most of us here have figured out it is not “Democrats” vs “Republicans” or “Liberal’ vs “Conservatives” (There is actually a good mix of all brands here) The real fight is between the Regulating Class and the rest of the people who are fast becoming their serfs.
If you do the “Follow the Money” for both the Food/Landgrab and for Global Warming as I have you keep turning up Shell Oil, BP, World Bank, the Rockefellers, Maurice Strong, Pascal Lamy, the Rothschilds, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs.
These are the people/groups that run the world and who want an even tighter grip on their
cattlechattel-us.THINK – what is a serf? Someone stuck living in one place with no possibility of leaving. Someone forced to work for someone else with no hope of a business of their own. Someone unable to own their own land and grow their own food, That is a very good description of Agenda 21 aka Sustainability.
Do you have any idea WHO wrote Agenda 21 aka Sustainability? Well I do, it was Ged Davis VP of SHELL OIL! and recent head of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s (WBCSD) Scenario Project team responsible for producing work on sustainable development aka Agenda 21. He is the guy who wrote the attachment in a KEY Climategate e-mail sent to over 40 people including Greenpeace, the World Bank, government officials and universities professors.
Shell Oil wants to push natural gas. Ged Davis wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis
To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:
No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. Tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ aka ‘the energy sector’ they have conned ordinary people into thinking needs replacing.
If you remember the BEST surface station temperature study and Richard Muller, he owns Muller & Associates. One of his ADVISORS is Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil”
This from the Muller & Associates Website
If we follow the Shell Oil connection, we find Queen Beatrix of the Dutch House of Orange and Lord Victor Rothschild are the two largest shareholders of RD/Shell. (I read some where the Dutch Royal family owns about 25%)
Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family is heavily tied to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Gets positively incestuous doesn’t it?
More on big Oil and CAGW link
[Snip. Same reason as before. ~dbs, mod.]